Benjamin Walsh <benjamin.walsh@...>
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 08:24:17AM +0000, Andreas Lenz wrote:
Hi Ben,Yeah, but that is not backwards-compatible with the API. And that only#define US_TIMEOUT(us) \You could also use the full bits and add one additional byte to
works for timers, not the other APIs that take timeouts. Although, that
might be irrelevant.
For the "mean something else", I have a use case for low-priority, orInteresting idea. That could be a new API for timers though, it doesn't
have to modify an already existing one.
Actually, it would probably have to be handled differently as well,
since the current implementation of timeouts does not handle having more
expired ticks than the next timer to expire, and this condition would
happen with this new feature when the kernel is in tickless idle.
What I have in mind is battery monitoring where checks should be done